The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per SNOW. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in the United States[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list does not seem to have any real encyclopedic purpose. Most of the items in the list do not have articles unto themselves and if they do have articles it's just because the notable hospital listed has a specialized burn ward. As the past few hours have shown, people seem to only use this page within social media to make a point. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad nomination. This article is currently undergoing a spate of vandalism due to a link from a popular blog. The nominator does not seem to be aware of the history and importance of burn centers in the United States. They are expensive highly specialized facilities which are quite rare. The US is a worlwide leader in burn medicine due to these centers. Burn medicine in the US hit its peak in the 80s and the expense of running a burn center has led to multiple closures since then. While many hospitals in the US have something like an ER usually there are only a couple of burn centers per state, if that. This rarity, combined with the amount of research generated by each burn center, makes them notable entities. Moreover a list of these entities has a clear encyclopedic use and can stand alone as a complete well-sourced reference and sister article to burn center (which needs some work). The argument that most entries are currently redlinks is a non-starter. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of burn centers does not detract from the fact that this is just a list of hospitals in the US that happen to have burn units, many of which do not have articles on their own, which means that this list does not serve any useful navigational purpose.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation is not the sole purpose for lists on wikipedia. Lists may include subject-specific information. It may not always be preferable to maintain an article on each burn center, in which case this list should link to the burn center section in the parent hospital's article. If any of the burn center hospitals do not yet have articles then there's nothing wrong with leaving a redlink. The notability criteria for hospitals are fairly lax and the possession of a specialized burn center is a signifier of notability in and of itself.

I understand the frustration of dealing with poorly maintained articles and vandalism. Sometimes circumstances conspire to call administrator attention to articles which should be deleted, other times to articles which need improvement. In this case I think you made a mistake by choosing the former instead of calling attention to the latter. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this list serves a valid navigational purpose. Per WP:RED, "Red links are frequently present in lists [...]" and "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any benefit for this project in deleting this kind of information. Useful summary for medical research. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many blue links on the list, and the red links point toward future article creation opportunities. We don't delete an article or a list just because a bunch of trolls get their kicks by vandalizing it for a while. They will move on, and we will improve the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above. Russavia (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it seems to me that the nomination was driven by (over?)reaction to a bout of vandalism. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If important, suggest adding a category too! Widefox; talk 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above. I will keep an eye on the list and help to turn some of the red links into solid articles.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Something being used for a humorous does not make it inherently unencyclopaedic, nor does a large target of vandalism need to be removed because of such. Sellyme^Talk 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW, frivolous deletion nomination. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.